“Hunger, Tiredness”: Allahabad High Court Judge Records Unusual Note While Reserving Verdict
The Allahabad High Court judge Justice Subhash Vidyarthi noted he was “hungry, tired and physically incapacitated” to dictate the judgment following a prolonged hearing.
After hearing a matter for nearly three hours, a judge of the Allahabad High Court recently recorded an unusual note while reserving judgment. The hearing, which began at 4.15 pm in view of the Supreme Court’s direction for expeditious disposal of the matter, concluded at 7.10 pm. Justice Subhash Vidyarthi then observed that he was feeling “hungry, tired and physically incapacitated to dictate the judgment,” and reserved the order.
The court had earlier noted that the six-month period indicated by the Supreme Court of India while remanding the matter expired on February 24, the very day it was taken up. The case was listed under the heading “Hon’ble Supreme Court expedited matters.” Despite a heavy board comprising 92 fresh matters, 101 regular matters, 39 fresh miscellaneous applications and additional unlisted cases, the bench proceeded to hear the petition in the evening hours.
However, after concluding the hearing, the judge expressed that he was exhausted and therefore, could not dictate the order.
This is not an isolated instance; on earlier occasions, too, judges of the Allahabad High Court have drawn attention for striking observations recorded in their judicial orders.
In a separate development, Justice Pankaj Bhatia of the high court recently asked the Chief Justice to relieve him of the bail roster, stating that remarks made by the Supreme Court on his bail order in a dowry death case had a “demoralising and chilling effect” on him. The request was recorded while he recused from hearing a bail application.
The development followed the Supreme Court’s decision in Chetram Verma vs State of U.P., where the bail order passed by Justice Bhatia was set aside. The apex court described the order as “one of the most shocking and disappointing orders” and directed that a copy of its judgment be placed before the Chief Justice of the high court.
Justice Bhatia observed that while judicial orders are always open to scrutiny and interference, the nature of the observations had a serious impact on him. He released the matter from his board and requested that the bail roster not be assigned to him in future.
Case Title: Chandralekha Singh vs. Canara Bank Regional Office,Lko. Thru. Auth. Officer/Chief Manager And 3 Others
Order Date: February 24, 2026
Bench: Justice Subhash Vidyarthi